4.7 Article

Observed increases in Bering Strait oceanic fluxes from the Pacific to the Arctic from 2001 to 2011 and their impacts on the Arctic Ocean water column

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2012GL054092

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [ARC-0632154, ARC-053026]
  2. NOAA-RUSALCA
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Office of Polar Programs (OPP) [0855748] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [0856786] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mooring data indicate the Bering Strait throughflow increases similar to 50% from 2001 (similar to 0.7 Sv) to 2011 (similar to 1.1 Sv), driving heat and freshwater flux increases. Increase in the Pacific-Arctic pressure-head explains two-thirds of the change, the rest being attributable to weaker local winds. The 2011 heat flux (similar to 5 x 10(20)J) approaches the previous record high (2007) due to transport increases and warmer lower layer (LL) temperatures, despite surface temperature (SST) cooling. In the last decade, warmer LL waters arrive earlier (1.6 +/- 1.1 days/yr), though winds and SST are typical for recent decades. Maximum summer salinities, likely set in the Bering Sea, remain remarkably constant (similar to 33.1 psu) over the decade, elucidating the stable salinity of the western Arctic cold halocline. Despite this, freshwater flux variability (strongly driven by transport) exceeds variability in other Arctic freshwater sources. Remote data (winds, SST) prove insufficient for quantifying variability, indicating interannual change can still only be assessed by in situ year-round measurements. Citation: Woodgate, R. A., T. J. Weingartner, and R. Lindsay (2012), Observed increases in Bering Strait oceanic fluxes from the Pacific to the Arctic from 2001 to 2011 and their impacts on the Arctic Ocean water column, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L24603, doi: 10.1029/2012GL054092.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据